Tennessee's New Evolution Battles

America's Evolution and Creationism battles really began with the infamous Scopes Trial of 1925.  Authorities charged a school teacher, John Scopes, with the crime of teaching Darwin's dangerous theory of evolution to his students.  Though found guilty of the crime, the Scopes Trial opened the door to teaching evolution in high schools and igniting the conflict we still fight today.  Actually, we are still fighting this battle in Tennessee.

Scientific American highlights the rising battles and the new tactics used by the creationists.  The creationists perceive themselves as modern-day Scopes fighting oppressive laws that limit teacher discussions.  In this light, Tennessee's anti-evolution bill and others in the country are misleadingly called "Academic Freedom" bills.  On the surface, these bills promote critical thinking skills by allowing teachers to present the strength and weaknesses of scientific theories: evolution, abiogenesis, big bang, global warming and others.  Realistically, fundamentalist teachers can introduce creationism and intelligent design to the classroom.  Instead of actively promoting the teaching of creationism, these bills simply say that there is no prohibition on the topics.

We can deduce the actual motives of the bill from their writers.  The Discover Institute, who introduced Intelligent Design, wrote at least part the the Tennessee bill.  Fresh off their defeat in Dover, the Discover Institute has learned from the previous failures and are helping these legislators search for a legal loophole to circumvent the First Amendment.  They care far less about strong science education than they do about religious indoctrination.

This is why we must continue to fight against these anti-evolution bills.

Cell (Phone) Microscopes in Class

This might be pretty cool.  For about $20, you can purchase something to add to your iPhone (and really any cell phone).  A tiny glass (or plastic) bead attached to your camera lens can turn your phone into a microscope.  An app would then help the resolution to create better images.

Ichneumon Wasp's Compound Eye - Charles Krebs

It may help doctors diagnose blood disorders, but I am interested in the opportunities for science education.

Almost every child has a cell phone.  At least enough have them for group work.  Many students have smart phones with high resolution cameras.  A small grant could pay for enough kits for the class and the apps.

We should see a technological revolution in the classroom.  This could change how we teach cell biology, but also how we teach spectroscopy in chemistry.  Cool stuff could be coming soon.

Creationist Biology Teachers

Creationist "Science" Teacher, Beau Schaffer, will be keeping his job as a Libertyville High School biology teacher.  Recently, the school board and superintendent decided not to fire him, even though he violated several Supreme Court rulings and district rules by teaching Creationism to his student.  In a related story, Tom Ritter, a biology teacher from Pennsylvania, has sued the school board for the teaching of evolution, which he calls "unscientific".    In my own high school, my biology teacher refused to teach evolution because she did not believe it and would not discuss it.

In each instance, and the remaining 13% of creationist biology teachers, these individuals have risen and declared this truth: "I don't know anything about the subject that I am supposed to teach to your children!"  They dress it up in many ways like Tom Ritter who also states, "I do not understand the methods and characterizations of science".  Or my teacher, "I don't know anything about the topic, but at least I won't do anymore damage than plant a tiny seed of doubt in 150 years of scientific observation and theory".

Yet these teachers keep their jobs (even while school boards slash the teaching force and governors make boogie men out of teachers unions).  You can't teach biology if you don't understand evolution.  Simple.  That 60% of biology teacher teach the bare minimum or admit to avoiding the subject bothers me, but applies to another post.

Imagine a math teacher to claims not to believe in calculus, scoffs at the idea of Game "Theory", or refuses to teach algebra as Muslim conspiracy.  Imagine history teachers leading lessons question the veracity of Holocaust claims, or claiming that the Founders used the Three-Fifth's clause to undermine slavery and never resting until the awful practice were abolished.

Of course we would look upon these teachers for what they are, people who don't understand the subject for which we pay them to teach.  A Holocaust-denying art teacher or algebraically-illiterate civics teacher present sad problems for the general education of the American public, but their beliefs don't affect their ability to teach their subjects. I couldn't care less about a creationist librarian, but if your job is to teach biology then you should know what you are talking about.

Tyson: Why Science Literacy Matters

At the World Science Festival, Neil DeGrasse Tyson shares his enthusiastic views on the importance of understanding science.  Science illiteracy threatens our society in many ways- from selling fancy placebo crystals to policy matters in politics.  We need more people like Dr. Tyson to eagerly share science to the public, correcting massive misconceptions and leading our future.

A Visual Tour of the Primate Family Tree

Ed Young put this slideshow of primates on his website, Not Exactly Rocket Science.  When studying biology, we selfishly search for our place in the animal kingdom.  Yes, we are animals.  We are also (in descending order): chordates, VERTEBRATES, gnathostomes, tetropods, amniotes, MAMMALS, placentals, PRIMATES, GREAT APES, hominids, and humans.  Each category provides a wealth of information of characteristics and helps us to understand our similarities and differences with other organisms.

Image from Wikipedia- Japanese Macaques just chillin' in a hot tub.

At the primate level, we share a number a traits.  We all have opposable thumbs (Which I think is redundant.  If it is not opposable, isn't it just the first finger).  We all have finger nails instead of claws.  We all have collarbones which move our arms to the sides of our bodies.  We all have stereoscopic vision which helps to just distances.  These traits, and more, define us as primates.  As we peer deeper into the family, we find more traits in common with our closer cousins.  Likewise, our DNA shows more and more similarities.  The trend continues to our closest cousins, structurally and genetically, the chimpanzees.

These common traits and common DNA sequences would be exactly what you would expect if species started off as one population and later became distinct species.  Evolution helps us understand our difference and to appreciate our similarities.  This is the power of evolution as the unifying theory of biology.  Human evolution frightens many people away from science, but can also help to teach the amazing story of our family tree.

How Nicotine Works

We have been talking about cell biology in class these last few weeks.  Specifically, we just covered passive/active transport and endocytosis/exocytosis.  I enjoy looking at how the brain works while covering this.  The students don't have to understand neurotransmitters and how drugs work for basic biology, but many find it enjoyable.

After talking about it on Friday, I then found this infographic about how nicotine works.  Some take home facts:  Nicotine (like caffeine) serves the plant as an insecticide to fight off pests.  Each cigarette provides 1 or 2 mg of nicotine, yet a 60 mg dose would kill a human.  Nicotine mimics the actions of acetylcholine.

The website, GOOD, has some pretty cool infographics, videos and news.  Check it out.

Re-Defining Evolution

Recently, the National Association of Biology Teachers (NABT) made a small, accommodating change to their "official" definition of evolution.  The previous definition went like this:

The diversity of life on earth is the result of evolution: an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance, historical contingencies and changing environments.

Eugenie Scott, of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), and others objected to a couple of words that were eventually removed.  As people debate the relationship between science and religion, many others in science education hope to find a common ground between the two to allow us to teach without completely offending religious students.  The NCSE sits in the middle and takes its lumps from both extremes.  

One of my favorite evolution cartoons.

In this case, the NCSE lobbied for the removal of the terms "unsupervised" and "impersonal" from the definition.  While the original definition upset the religiously inclined, the new definition has fed the attacks from the atheists.  Jerry Coyne posted a response to the news on his blog Why Evolution is True defending the materialistic meaning behind such words.  

First of all, we all agree on 95% of the definition of evolution.  As described by Charles Darwin, evolution occurs by descent with modification.  As genetic material passes from parent to offspring, some individuals mate more often and minor mutations accumulate over time.  Natural selection and genetic drift act as environments change.  These mechanisms account for the massive biodiversity we see in the world from the remarkable, yet imperfect, human body to the oddities of life.  

Does "unsupervised" or "impersonal" really affect a person's ability to understand evolution?  Not really. There is no evidence for or against a supervised process as evolution.  Many Theistic Evolutionist simply view natural selection as the tool God used to guide evolution.  But regardless, supervision or unsupervision is not a requirement of understanding the processes of  evolution.  The mechanisms of mutations and selection can still be taught without an outright attack on the religious students in the class.  

Removing the words, may help more students accept learning about evolution and make no change in the understanding of the science.  Evolution is still natural and unpredictable.  If we rewound the history of life and tried again, we have no certainty that humans would show up again.  Yet we constantly search for signs of intelligent life as far as our telescopes will listen hoping the evolution stumbled upon the same design elsewhere in the cosmos.

University professors have far more leeway in this regard than high school teachers which makes Coyne's objections rather predictable.  This small change to the definition of evolution will upset the atheists for a short while, but will have very little impact on the actual teaching of evolution in schools.   The NCSE and the NABT will still fight for quality science education for all students.  We teachers will still teach the mechanisms of evolution and the wonders of life.  And we will still debate the compatibility of science and religion.

TDS on Teachers and Wall Street

Jon Stewart, as always, applies a funny, yet poignant, point to the news.  In his case, he compares the response to the Wisconsin Teachers fight (and elsewhere) to other events in the news like the Wall Street bailout.  We can pay off Wall Street, but we can't pay for education.

I would normally say, "Enjoy!", but that doesn't seem appropriate here:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Crisis in the Dairyland - For Richer and Poorer - Teachers and Wall Street
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

Tickling the Ivories to Teach Evolution

Richard Dawkins plays the piano to demonstrate the vastness of geologic time.  He places the beginning of life at the far left and present at the far right.  So when do humans show up?  We don't even get one whole note!

Great analogy:

Explaining Relativity

I saw this amazing video which helps to explain a strange occurrence in space-time.  When traveling at the speed of light, time moves more slowly causing you to age less than someone else.  Anyways, watch the video and enjoy!

A Tale of Two Twins from Yuanjian Luo on Vimeo.

The Potential Power of Mutations

This video records the results of a simple experiment.  Clement Valla designed an online drawing tool with one function.  Users traced a line on the screen.  Beginning with a straight line, the first user attempts to copy the line perfectly.  The second user copies the first user's line and so on.  Eventually the tiny imperfections in each line continue to distort the original picture, a straight line.  This simple experiment demonstrates the potential power of small mutations as they add up over time.  Valla produced a similar video beginning with a circle, with similar results.  I may attempt to reproduce the results in a class experiment this year.  Looks like fun.

Enjoy!

A Sequence of Lines Traced by Five Hundred Individuals from clement valla on Vimeo.

An Amazing Kid

Several people have picked up the story of a Louisiana high school student who chose to stand up for science education.  Zack Kopplin has found a few friends in his quest to better education in this state.  He took on the conservative group, Louisiana Family Forum, after they complained about a biology textbook discussing evolution in a positive manner!  His lobbying efforts to the state school board led to an 8-2 decision in favor of science.

With his success, Zack has now set his sites on the repeal of Louisiana's covertly creationist law which seeks to undermine the teaching of evolution in high school.  Disguised as an Academic Freedom, these bills try to get biology teachers to openly teach creationism or Intelligent Design.  Zack's website Repeal Creationism attempts to bring the same grassroots mentality his previous achievement  to this new challenge.

Win or lose, Zack Kopplin is definitely an amazing kid who deserves another shout out.  Not many 17-year-olds would take a definitive stance on any topic, much less science education.  He serves as a example for all of us.  If he can demand better education, then why can't we do it too?

I wish his success in his endeavors- in this and in the future.

Creationist Tricks Won't Change Science

Steven Newton wrote this interesting opinion article for The Christian Science Monitor.  He recounts the tricks that creationists continue to develop to push science out of the classroom.  Even with their tactics, the science of evolution remains.

Many creationists claim that the scientists don't even agree on evolution, therefore teachers must "teach the controversy" to high school students.  Or teachers should provide "supplemental materials" for the students to read (since the textbooks only teach science).  These new tactics come after a long line of defeats in the courtroom.  The first effort banned the teaching of evolution all together, which led to the famous Scopes Monkey Trial in Tennessee.  While anti-evolutionists actually won that trial, evolution soon took its rightful place in school  curricula.  Soon decision after decision from the Supreme Court to Dover ruled in favor of evolution and against Creationist complaints.  Creationists have invented creation science and Intelligent Design to sound scientific but have found zero success in the courts, curricula, or classrooms.

As Creationists exert enormous effort to undermine science eduction, they have had no impact on the actual science.  Scientific consensus agrees on the principle of descent with modification.  Our understanding of evolution continues to increase and refine with every new discovery.  No experiment or discovery has yet to disprove the original hypothesis.  New fossil discoveries fit nicely into pre-existing models or clarify classifications.  Genomic sequences provide molecular evidence of genetic similarities between species and identify differences that make species unique.

Science has decided- evolution wins.  Creationist's only hope to confuse the public and create controversy where none exists.  They continue their fight against science mostly because they do not understand it.  I have never encountered a Creationist arguing against evolution, only the confused caricatures of evolution in their collective mind.  This is why we must demand quality science education in our high schools from teachers who understand their subject and aren't afraid to teach it.

Creationist Influence on Science Education

Jennifer Welsh recounts a new study analyzing the teaching of evolution in high school classrooms.  The results offer a bleak picture for science literacy in the next generation.  Evolution serves as the central, unifying theory of the biological sciences.  To understand biology is to understand evolution and vice versa.  Unfortunately, only 28% of science teachers actively provide detailed evidence and explanations of evolution for their students.  While I am glad to find myself in the top of my profession, 13% of science teachers actually preach creationism to their classes.

Most science standards in the US weave evolution throughout the curriculum.  Evolution helps us make sense of structural and physiological adaptations, genotypic and phenotypic variations, and taxonomic and ecological relationships.  Biology students should be introduced to the historical narrative of Darwin's life, the early description of natural selection, and the evidence accumulated by other scientists since 1859.  I like to talk about the common examples, but prefer to find the more interesting cases from recent studies.  I also confront student misconceptions by having students write down questions about evolution which I answer during the evolution unit.  Most questions ask about "the human-monkey thing" or about Darwin's life and beliefs.

From an old study, but shows our rank
in the world of evolution understanding.

So what happens with the other 72% of science teachers?  Like I said, 13% actively teach creationism/intelligent design.  My own high school teacher did not believe in evolution and refused to talk about it.  We completely skipped that particular chapter in high school, so I never actually learned anything about evolution until my freshman biology course in college.  That happens way too much.

Another 60% of science teachers barely broach the topic of evolution.  Teachers fear repercussions of mentioning evolution and offending fundamentalist students or parents (a few cases have occurred in NC).  Too avoid these problems, the teachers cover just enough to prepare the students for the final exam without going into detail or answering any questions.  Apart from reprisals, many teacher do not feel that they possess adequate knowledge of evolution to teach the subject.  Some teachers taught both evolution and creationism to let the students decide for themselves.

As a nation, our position in science education continues to drop (along with math and reading) as almost 40% of Americans reject evolution.  I remain convinced that most negative reactions to evolution stem from misunderstandings of the topic.  To counter these misconceptions, we need qualified science teachers who aren't afraid to teach science.  If our teachers don't accept accepted science, you can expect our collective scientific literacy to continue in the negative direction.

Lost in Translation

I love teaching biology.  My one problem with high school science is that we are forced to simplify our topics so much that it sometimes feels like I am lying to the students just to help them understand.  Right now, I am teaching genetics and discussing dominance and independent assortment.  In the next chapter, I will break all of the rules of genetics that I just taught them.  Most genes do not have a simple dominant or recessive allele and genes located on the same chromosome are linked together in nature and in the statistics.  


In DNA, the story is far more complicated that time and End-of-Course Test will allow.  Our version of protein synthesis presents as follows:  DNA holds the code for making proteins which is transcribed into mRNA and taken to the ribosome to be translated into an amino acid chain.  However, this process skips a few facts and steps which I think makes the topic even more intriguing.  To be honest, I usually try to mention these interesting parts to the students- knowing that some will neither care nor understand, but maybe one or two will wish to learn more.  


Scientific American posted an article challenging my simplified version of protein synthesis.  In the DNA, some stretches do not actually code for anything.  When the mRNA begins transcription, segments called introns must be removed through RNA splicing.  Only segments called exons carry information.


Now researchers find that mRNA even makes edits to the code after splicing- meaning that RNA itself can edit the DNA code and make a slightly different protein.  This means that even organisms with the exact same DNA (clones and twins) can make slightly different proteins through RNA editing.  While our DNA is 99.9% the same, maybe our RNA makes us slightly more different than that.  To add a greater impact, this process has been implicated as a possible cause for ALS and Epilepsy 1. 


Sadly, high school textbooks, curricula, and state tests continue to sterilize biology to the lowest common denominator.  Hopefully, I can teach them the basics and with brief asides to the amazing nature of biology I can show science for what it is- a changing, complex network of paradigms constantly at risk of collapsing under new data.

Our Extended Family

The Smithsonian Institute recently reopened their Hall of Human Origins with new fossils and new models.  I am very eager to go check it out.  But since I have no time, I will have to be satisfied with pictures.

Scientific American has a slide show of our extended family.  It looks pretty good.  Check it out!

Ten in a Row!

For the tenth year in a row, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill earns the top spot in Kiplinger's list of the best-value public colleges.  UNC provides an excellent education and leaves students little debt as a result (especially in-state students).  The top ten list is available here from the Huffington Post.  The University of Virginia and the University of Maryland also made the top ten to give the ACC the best conference showing.

High School Test on The Theory of Evolution

When debating creationists, I am always amazed by their ignorance of the science of evolution.  For the most part, Creationists are not stupid people but often very intelligent and highly productive members of society.  Unfortunately, they don't understand the science.  This would not matter until they begin attacking evolution through their own misunderstandings and misconceptions.

To test some basic knowledge, I am going to post some of the questions from the actual test that I give to my students on The Theory of Evolution.

In Light of Evolution

In 1973, Theodosius Dobzhansky wrote this article for The American Biology Teacher magazine.  Titled "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in Light of Evolution", the article simultaneously identifies evolution as the unifying theory of biology while leaving room for the religiously inclined.  Dubbed Theistic Evolution, Dobzhansky shows how a knowledge of science does not preclude faith, and may in fact enhance it.  Dobzhansky helped to establish the Modern Synthesis of evolution with biology.  So powerful is the idea of evolution, that we can easily say that evolution is biology and biology is evolution.

In his important writing, Dobzhansky begins by describing a Arab Sheik's denouncement of Copernican Theory (that the Earth revolves around the sun).  The Sheik lacked a fundamental understanding of modern physics and stood ignorant of the scientific facts on the theory.  Instead he based his entire knowledge of the universe on a literal interpretation of the Koran, to which Dobzhansky responds:

The Koran and the Bible do not contradict Copernicus, nor does Copernicus contradict them. It is ludicrous to mistake the Bible and the Koran for primers of natural science. They treat of matters even more important: the meaning of man and his relations to God. They are written in poetic symbols that were understandable to people of the age when they were written, as well as to peoples of all other ages.

No one should use the Bible as a science book.  Many natural philosophers thought that to understand God, you must study God's Word (Bible) and God's Works (Nature).  Biology becomes another aspect of that understanding, which even Darwin identified.

Like Copernican Theory, Evolution has been constantly confirmed through experimentation and observation.  This was true in 1973, and more so in 2010 with the science of genomics.  From fossilized bones in the ground to fossil genes in our genomes, evolution helps us explain the magnificent diversity of life.  And while see witness this diversity, organisms show shocking similarities with homologous structures and redundant DNA.

Creationists appear willfully ignorant of the facts of evolutionary theory.  They (and the new atheists) promote the false dichotomy of science or religion.  If you want to debate religion, let's do that. Debate Christianity and atheism.  Leave the science out of it. Leave evolution out of it.  Evolution is not the sole domain of atheism.  An understanding of evolution may fall in line with your views on religion as an atheist, but it also falls in line with my views as a Christian.  Evolution only sits against the fundamentalist, literal view of the Bible, while creationism must fight back all of biology, geology, chemistry, and physics.

Dobzhansky (and many others afterwards) hold a different view.  He describes this problem:

It is wrong to hold creation and evolution as mutually exclusive alternatives. I am a creationist and an evolutionist. Evolution is God’s, or Nature’s method of creation.

You can incorporate your views on religion with the overwhelming evidence for evolution.  Theistic evolutionists believe in God and accept modern science.  We see evolution, not as an enemy, but as a tool for God to create.  We faced with the facts of evolution and an understanding of what it really is, people must accept evolution as true.

During his paper, Dobzhansky continues to identify the most common examples of evolution which students should have learned in high school: common DNA, adaptive radiation, and comparative anatomy.  Each of these can best be explained through evolution- unless you accept that God is a devious jokester who only made life appear to have evolved.

Evolution explains all of biology by tying together diverse facts.  Indeed:

Seen in the light of evolution, biology is, perhaps, intellectually the most satisfying and inspiring science. Without that light it becomes a pile of sundry facts some of them interesting or curious but making no meaningful picture as a whole.

Well said. Well said.

Why School Choice Doesn't Work

Frederick Hess wrote an article for National Affairs about the ineffectiveness of school choice.  I have never really been a fan of the school-choice movement.  I understand the inspiration: schools would have to compete for students which should in turn lead to better teachers.  I have seen little evidence for this.

We see sports teams consolidating their power by essentially creating all-star teams.  Each sport has its own school for you to go to.  Instead of transferring for academic reasons, student-ATHLETES change schools to win games.

Does this work in the classroom?  What we find are some schools that are overcrowded and underfunded.  Education does not work from a business model, but rather a communal outlook.  The education of the child depends on solid teachers, funded schools, and interested parents.  Local schools should be places of pride.  Instead of finding ways of making the school better, parents find a "better" school for their child to attend.

So far, school choice only gives us state championship teams.  Shouldn't we look for championship-caliber classes?